Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. GA‑571 of 1983, decided on 24th June, 1984.

‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑Re‑instatement ‑ Back benefits ‑ Workman dismissed for misconduct ‑ Prosecution and defence evidence balanced‑A border line case and Labour Court giving accused benefit of doubt‑Re‑instated workman in border line case, held, not entitled to back benefits.

Zafar Saleem for Appellant.

Syed Kamal Mufti for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 17th June, 1984.

This is an appeal preferred against the decision, dated 21^st November, 1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala. The appellant has been directed to be re‑instated in service but back benefits have not been allowed to him, without recording any reason.

2. A perusal of the enquiry proceedings shows that proper opportunity was afforded to the appellant to cross‑examine the prosecution witnesses and to produce defence. He examined as many as five witnesses in defence. This was not a case of no evidence. All the prosecution witnesses deposed against the appellant. No doubt, P. W. 4 admitted before the enquiry officer that the outer engine was operated by the appellant on the day of the incident, but he also stated that he firstly refused to operate it. All the P. Ws. deposed about the mis-behaviour o A the appellant before the complainant. The incident was admitted by some of the defence witnesses although they did not give the details. It was a border line case and it appears that as the prosecution evidence and the defence evidence were balanced, the learned lower Court gave benefit of doubt to the appellant. In border line cases the re‑instated worker cannot be said to be entitled to back benefits.

3. As a result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

A. E.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.